________________
May, 1918)
THE FARUQI DYNASTY OF KHANDESH
119
children he would not have been likely to imperil the rights of a son who might be born to him by naming a distant relative as his heir. It appears therefore that 1499-1500, the date given by Firishta for the invasion of Khândesh by Mahmûd Baikarah, is correct. After his reconciliation with his suzerain 'Adil Khân visited Gujarât and was kindly received, and the author of the Zafar-al-Walih says that he associated much with Mahmûd Baikarah and was on most intimate terms with him. He was childless and the heir-presumptive to the throne of Khandesh was his younger brother, Da'ad Khân, a feeble and worthless prince. There was at the court of Mahmûd Baikarah a child, 'Alam Khan, who was directly descended in the male line from Hasan (hân, Malik Iftikhar, the younger brother of Naşir Khân who, after having been captured and imprisoned by his brother, had been sent to Gujarât. where he and his descendants had lived ever since, the objects of the special favour of the kings of that country. Hasan Khân married a relation, probably a sister, of his benefactor, Abmad I of Gujarat and left & son, Ghazni Khân, who married Abmad Shah's daughter and left by her a son, Qaisar Khân, who married the daughter of the Sultan of Sind and left a son, Ahsan Khân, who was married by Mahmud Baikarah to his daughter, the sister of Muzaffar II of Gujarat, and left a son, Alam Khân, who was related to 'Adil Khân II no more nearly than in the ninth degree, but was regarded almost as a member of the royal house of Gujarat. Firishta, 10 in his heading to the reign of Alam Khân, who eventually succeeded under the title of Adil Khân III, makes him a son of Nasir Khân, but this is absurd, for he was certainly a child about 1500 and Naşir had died in 1437. If we supported * Alam Khân to be a posthumous son of Naşîr he would have been seventy-one years of age at the time of his accession in 1509, when he was certainly a young man. Moreover Firishta contradicts himself, 11 by correctly describing "Alam Khan as daughter's son to Mahmud Baikarah of Gujarât, who was fourteen years of age in 1458, so it is obvious that he cannot have been a son of Nasir Khân.
One day towards the end of his reign Adil Khân II, who was visiting Mahmûd Baikarah, was sitting with him in the hall of the palace at Champânir, when the conversation turned on Alam Khân, who was then in the room. Mahmud evidently wished that he should be well provided for, and 'Adil Khân embraced and fondled the engaging child and at length promised Mahmûd that he should succeed him on the throne of Khandesh.
Shortly after adopting his young cousin as his heir Adil Khân II, died. Regarding the date of his death there are some discrepancies. Firishta gives it, 11 as Rabi-al-awwal 14,897 (Jan. 15, 1492) but this date, which differs by more than ten years from that given by any other authority, may be at once discarded, for Firishta himself contradicts it twice, first in stating that Adil Khân II, having succeeded on Rajab 12, 861,13 reigned for 'forty-six years, eight months, and twelve days, which period brings the date of his death to Rabi-al-awwal 24, 908 (Sep. 27, 1502), and secondly in stating that Adil Khan's successor, Da'ad Khân, died on Jamadi-al-awwal 1, 914, after a reign of eight years, one month, and ten days, according to which statement the date of Adil Khân's death would be Rabî-alawwal 20,906 (Oct. 14, 1500). The author of the Zafar-al-Walih,16 gives the date as Rabi'al-awwal 15,907 (Sep. 28, 1501) which divides almost equally the period between the two dates found by calculation from Firishta's statements regarding the duration of the two reigns and may be accepted as correct. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, in his Mohammadan Dynasties, 16 gives the date of Adil Khan's death and Da'ad's accession as 1503, for which
1, 401, 13 ii, 550.
10 ii, 662, 563. 14 ii, 651.
11 , 562. 15 i, 64.
17 ü, 504 26 p. 316.
